This is a discussion on T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Hey, all.
On russian website I've seen too many sayings like "Abrams' piece of crap - T-90 the best". So ...
On russian website I've seen too many sayings like "Abrams' piece of crap - T-90 the best". So I was just wondering, is T-90 that great? Because I have a hard time believing it. I'm not saying it's not a good tank - it is. But is it, like the russkies say, best of all?
Of course any country would say same about their tanks.
Please no more this kind of topics like east vs. west, USA best? or something like that...No political discussion.
I think that T-90 IS one of the best.
And it is true that abrams is a little "crap" but there is coming lot's of upragades* that make it better.
One major issue with the T-90 is that it has not been upgraded and has not seen combat whereas the M1 has been upgraded to M1A1, then to M1A2, the TUSK enhancement, and the SEP upgrade. Also, the M1 has seen combat and has performed brilliantly.
One major issue with the T-90 is that it has not been upgraded and has not seen combat whereas the M1 has been upgraded to M1A1, then to M1A2, the TUSK enhancement, and the SEP upgrade. Also, the M1 has seen combat and has performed brilliantly.
Agree that a MBT needs to see some serious service before one can judge it. The most recent Russian-built MBTs used in conflicts were T-72s... and we all remember the colulmns of burnt out T-72s of the Iraqi elite Republican Guard after fights with M1A2s (though USAF and Apaches helped a lot).
You'll tell me : the T-90 is generations ahead of T-72s... well yes, but at least the main gun is still the same
Well, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to start any political discussion. I am actually trying to understand if the T-90 is AS good as they say it is. I know it's a good tank, but I hardly believe it doesn't have any cons. And being an Israeli, I'm especially interested to know if T-90 is better than the Merkava Mark 4 (at least on the datasheet, as we can make only assumptions about T-90 in an actual war), as IMO there's a good chance the IDF might meet the T-90 one day on the ground.
The only test of a weapon systems effectiveness is combat. I am sure that everyonw here is aware of all the positive press the T72 got when it first appeared, in fact that tank caused a lot of worry in NATO until..you guessed it, The Bekaa Valley in 1982, and the Gulf War part I. So, lets keep this all in perspective shall we, every Russian MBT that has made an appearance on the battlefield has been defeated by western MBT's for the last 50 plus years.
Where is the Battlefield evidence? Where are the facts, not Hyperbole?
T-72 caused much trouble because during this time M60s, Leopard 1s, Centurions and even M-48s were the backbone of the NATO-forces in Europe. And for them a T-72 (Especially when it is not an Export T-72M) would have been something to really worry about.
T-72 caused much trouble because during this time M60s, Leopard 1s, Centurions and even M-48s were the backbone of the NATO-forces in Europe. And for them a T-72 (Especially when it is not an Export T-72M) would have been something to really worry about.
You bet, in the '70s and early '80s the T72's 125mm main gun would have wrecked our Leo1 and M60 MBTs ! The Russians have lost the advantage on this escalation of firepower
While people have been talking of this v/s that for a long time let me ask you if a Round from 125mm gun from T-72 or T-90 hits M1A2 from a distance of say 2-3Km wont the Target be damaged ?(If NO then I rest my argument else all this talk is useless) same holds true if an Abrams or Leo fires on to a T-90.Only and the most decisive factor that favours the latest Leo's is the L55 main gun for it outranges the other tanks by a margin.
________________
[FONT="Arial Black"][I]Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. [/I][/FONT]---------Winston Churchill
How should we know? There have been not many occassions were Abrams, Leos, Challis, etc. have been fired upon by the latest russian gun/ammo combination.
There is always the possibility of partial failures or a mobility kill but if the armor is not penetrated you have a good chance of getting away unharmed because of the shock hardened electronic in modern tanks and the spall liners.
BTW, while increasing the effective range the L/55 also increase the penetration capability in general. Round about 30% more than a british L30 with DU ammo.
Do you think there will be more increases in caliber of main gun?or will they upgrade to other types of weapon, such as EM, etc? that would save some $$$$ in ammo. and it won´t get outdated.
.pt
Why would it not get outdatet? Everything gets outdatet sometime.
Germany and Switzerland both had test runs with 140mm main guns for the Leo II during the early '90s. The result in both countrys was that the benefits a higher calibre gives to you were not worth the problems it makes. More time needed for loading, less ammo in the tank, higher weight.
So they decided to gor for a longer barrel.
But sometime in the future a bigger calibre might be needed if there is no new invention like a usefull railgun.
For now the L/55 is the most powerfull gun in the world with the L/44 rated second place.
So there is no need for a new gun now.
But you never know what the future is going to bring to you.
Agree that a MBT needs to see some serious service before one can judge it. The most recent Russian-built MBTs used in conflicts were T-72s... and we all remember the colulmns of burnt out T-72s of the Iraqi elite Republican Guard after fights with M1A2s (though USAF and Apaches helped a lot).
You'll tell me : the T-90 is generations ahead of T-72s... well yes, but at least the main gun is still the same
cheers
I wouldn use that as an argument because during clashes with US army Iraq T-72 where downgraded version of T-72 (soviets sold only downgraded versions of weapons to arab nations) with less and downgraded armor, besides Iraq army had a pour training and often used steel penetrators with often half charge and without night vision, digital computer etc whitch combined with full air supremacy and one generation ahead of tanks M1A1 can not represent its true capabilities.
There is no way that a Russian T - 90 or a T - 80 can compare to a MIA1 or a M1A2, export or not. The only thing out there that can compare would be a German Leopard 2 A 5 or A 6. This is coming from someone who has alot of experience in this field. What happened to all those wonderful T - 80`s when the Russians decided to go in to their own backyard. (Chechney). I keep bringing up the T - 80 because it has alway`s been a far more advanced tank. All the Russians are trying to do is perform a T - 72 upgrade so that their Middle Eastern friends will buy them.
)
